Last week, the Seattle Public School District (“SPS”) sent out a notice that a law firm it had retained to handle a complaint on its behalf inadvertently delivered information of about 7,400 special education students. Information contained within the files not only included date of birth, school assignment, and grade, but it also included student identification numbers, special education assignments, disability categories and special education transportation information. SPS went on to state that “[r]elease of this information is of great concern” – but is it?

When it comes to data governance, the unauthorized release of mission-critical data, more-often-than-not, involves the conduct of a third-party. Organizations, like SPS, are so concerned about their internal protocols that they forget to examine their external processes. That is usually where the holes in an organization lie, and leaders fail to set a tone at the top on how to deal with third-party vendors. Up until the date of disclosure, did the SPS have a proactive process in place for how third-party vendors attested to their own data governance programs? Usually, the vendor will ask what protocols SPS would like for them to have in place, but the real question should be what safeguards do they have in place. If they are not willing to share that information, then SPS has the financial muscle to seek out another law firm.

For years now, I have spoken with colleagues in the legal profession over the necessity of implementing a data governance program for their law practice. The overwhelming response, to date, is one that most would probably not expect from practicing lawyers who have an ethical duty to keep client information confidential – that being one of apathy. The reason for this is two-fold: (1) the business benefit is hard to realize for most lawyers in the profession since a majority of firms are made up of less than 10 practitioners; and (2) the mindset of a lawyer is that their training has provided them with a suitable talent to react to any material adverse effect on their practice.

Last week, the Seattle Public Schools sent out a notice that it has “severed” its relationship with a law firm over that firm’s handling of mission critical information. In responding to a complaint filed against the Seattle Public School District (“SPS”), the law firm inadvertently delivered personally identifiable information of about 7,400 special education students. Although the information was inadvertently delivered to only one person, SPS felt that it needed to take corrective action and dismiss the law firm of Preg O’Donnell & Gillett from representing the school district in the complaint. Preg O’Donnell & Gillett, who have offices in Seattle, Portland, and Anchorage, did not respond to request by the media to be interviewed. A review of the law firms website would show that there are 7 members of the firm, all of whom would presumably have authority to create and implement a data governance program for the firm, especially if there are multiple offices throughout the region.

Data Governance is, and always will be, a “tone at the top” issue, and a paradigm shift in the legal profession needs to take place. Due to the average size of most law firms, much like any small business in America, hiring full-time IT staff cost-prohibitive, but a data governance program is not just about technology, it’s also about PEOPLE and PROCESSES. Law firms, and small businesses alike, have an ethical obligation to keep their proprietary data confidential. Start by training and educating your staff and clients at least twice a year on proper safeguard protocols – this is one proactive way to keep clients and therefore make money. From there, firms can assess and review exactly what other protocols need to be implemented internally and externally, as there is no one-size-fits-all approach to data governance.